|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Just because there's A way to say no and another thing said no a different way does not mean that all things have to say no the same way or they're not saying no.
And this is continued among the other equipment in the book. The book is fairly good at actively calling out what is only usable by their parent race.
The book was not written with pfs in mind.
The additional resources WAS written with the book in mind. That additional resource clause requires positive evidence that other races can use the item in question, and the ratfolk tail blade does not provide that. AR has a positive evidence requirement: the burden of proof is on "other races can use this" or anyone can use this, the tailblade doesn't sound like it can be.
The argument is equally valid that other races can't use it because they don't have the specific anatomy for it: the tail isn't as dexterous, the fur is in the way, etc.
<- You know that thing that isn't what normally happens with a secondary natural attack.
It doesn't come out and say it, but the rules listed for it use the rules for a primary (but not only) natural attack that can be used in conjunction with other weapons: which adds 1x strength bonus and is treated as a secondary natural attack if used as part of a full round action (for a ratfolk, presumably with a manufactured weapon)
Click the FAQ button up top and hope for a response. I'm hardly the most weird ideas adverse DM out there, but additional resources is one area where pfs is absurdly persnickity.
added it to the campaign clarification request thread.
That is not how you do rules adjudication. The options are not "it absolutely 100% says you can't do this" and "it absolutely 100% prohibits this" and something in the middle.
Racial equipment and magic items can be purchased and used by any race as long as the specific item permits it (for example, only halflings can purchase and use solidsmoke pipeweed).
To decide if something meets that criteria I'm looking for something along the lines of
Strong "other races with tails may use..."
To see if they don't meet the criteria
Strong: "only ratfolk have the tail that allows them to..."
So when i look at this, all I see is a weak "no". baring any other evidence that leaves me with no as the best answer I can derive from the rules.
In a PFS campaign where You have multiple DM's that is a very bad place for an idea to be. You don't just need 1 dm to sign off on it, if its a core part of your character you want 90 to 100% of the dms signing off on it, and baring official clarification, I don't think thats very likely.
I would be absolutely ecstatic to be wrong, as I have an adorable bundle of fluffy death foxform kitsune that would duct tape one of these on in a heartbeat.
We are talking about how far a character moves.
The rules aren't. You are equating distance traveled with distance traveled in the jump. They're not the same thing.
move 20 feet jump 20 feet move 20 feet.
distance moved, 60 feet. Distance jumped 20 feet.
It's plain in the text. It was plain in the table. It got FAq'd. Leave over.
.. i think ward of the seasons just replaced blend. But i probably have almost a year to make that decision. not that i've been mulling it over for 2 years or anything...
Neither anything i've said or any of your refutations of.. mostly things i didn't say warrant the "LOL".
And beyond that, we all ignore that part of the rule anyway. Otherwise, it would be almost impossible to jump a 5' pit onto a 5' landing with another 5' pit on the other side.
Reading the rule the right way, and doing that as 2 5 foot jumps, with a DC of 5 is not "ignoring the rules". Your misinterpretation of the rules is not the rules, especially when I just pointed out the inconsistency in how you arrived at that conclusion. Treating the creature as either a euclidean dot or a creature with anatomy will get you a viable conclusion. You created the "inconsistency in the rules" when you switched between the two mid argument.
Its very easy to go around that, you don't switch back and forth between treating a character like a 3 dimensional being with an anatomy and treating them like a euclidean dot on a line just to find a "contradiction" in the rules.
If the character is a euclidean dot they move 5 feet and have gone from one line to the other and are fine
If the character is a creature with an anatomy they put their heel at the edge of the cliff they're leaving jump 5 feet in the air and put their toes on the far side and are also fine. Distanced moved and distanced moved in the jump don't have to be the same thing.
Reading one sentence of the rules, in isolation, with the assumption that the rules and ones understanding of them are both perfectly clear and non contradictory are going to get you some wonky results. If something could be read one way or another, look for other bits of evidence rather than trying to apply Aristotelian logic because that doesn't work.
Linea Lirondottir wrote:
Infernal healing blows path of glory out of the water in terms of amount healed per gold piece spent for an adventuring party, which is what you're looking for in a wand. If you're healing an army i'm sure path of glory is great, but for a party of 3-6 its very meh.
So again, if the gap/DC is 5, and the result of the skill check is 5, by the first quote, you make it. By the second quote (found in the same paragraph) you fail to make it as you land 5' from your starting position, AKA in the hole.
While it can be read that way it does not HAVE to be read that way. You are assuming that the distance traveled and the distance jumped are the same: something that a dc 5 jump check on the chart should have precluded.
Christopher Senz wrote:
The spell tells you to use a template
A template is a set of rules that you apply to a monster to transform it into a different monster. It gives precise directions on how to change the original monster's statistics to transform it into the new monster.
Acquired Templates: This kind of template is added to a creature well after its birth or creation.
Inherited Templates: This kind of template is part of a creature from the beginning of its existence. Creatures are born or created with these templates already in place, and have never known life without them.
A template is by definition applied to a monster, they don't need to spell it out in the spell or the particular template. its like how spells don't all say "requires line of sight": its a basic assumption of spells from the magic chapter.
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
No. It is not. Having a listed price in the chart is not the only way to figure out a cost for something. There's no cost for an adamantium dagger, it does tell you how to figure it out though.
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
It's not quite working. 1 dose= 1 flask is a little arbitrary (unless that line with "worth 25 gp wasn't a figment of my imagination). That we don't know what the cost of unholy water is when we know it has a material component and we have prices for spellcasting services is NVTS nuts. While i disagree with them, their argument isn't THAT bad.
Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Going on the weirdest argument for something thread....
Mind you, and this is coming from someone that AGREES with the conclussion that there is no gp cost to the spell.
Temples to good deities sell holy water at cost (making no profit). Holy water is made using the bless water spell.
School necromancy [evil]; Level cleric 1
Casting Time 1 minute
Components V, S, M (5 lbs. of powdered silver worth 25 gp)
Target flask of water touched
Saving Throw Will negates (object); Spell Resistance yes (object)
This spell imbues a flask (1 pint) of water with negative energy, turning it into unholy water (see Equipment). Unholy water damages good outsiders the way holy water damages undead and evil outsiders.
So while unholy water might be 25 gp or 50 gp depending on whether evil temples hand it out at cost like good temples do , there is a definite in game price for an entire flask of holy water.
I could have sworn that some source listed the dose for infernal healings holy water as 25 gp, but as there's either an inconsistency in my memory or the sources. The devils blood is undeniably free.
There's a kitsune oracle curse in the dirty tactics toolbox, Wrecking Mysticism (Kitsune), that lets an oracle get the feats almost as fast as a fighter (and since the tails go off of charisma...)
OR they can just say that the castings are too small of an effect on your alignment to worry about in the timeframe of a pfs scenario. That way someone gets to be dark and gritty AND imaginary orphans get to "live" through the scenario.
And sexist does not equal Good.
But does it preclude it alltogether?
Considering some of the iffy things some of the other gods do (ragathiel obviously likes killing, Torag has a brutally practical approach to Orc tribes) it would be kind of weird that upholding traditional gender roles would be too evil to get over, especially when he's doing it with good intentions.
We're talking about the god of small communities when said small communities have to deal with everything rampaging dragons, owl bears, bullettes, oddly predatory wolves that will attack bands of well armed adventurers, roaving orc bands, kappies that will make you drown yourself for S&G, and swarms of insects that can strip a peasant to bare bones in 6 seconds.
Sexual dimorphism may be purely cosmetic in world, but reproduction is not*. Men are still the expendable gender. Sending them out to farm, hunt, and get meat makes sense in a dangerous world where losing 10 people a year could very well doom your entire community. Losing a husband hurts, but losing a wife will kill any child they're carrying and pose a severe risk for any nursing children they're leaving behind.
Men are more likely to try to take those risks.
Taking that trend and trying to apply it to more individuals than it really applies to is the problem with Law, not Evil. It's taking what's best for the community as a whole no matter if that sucks for the individuals within it: the woman who wants to hunt and the man who'd rather be a baker and well alive, too bad suck it up your tribe/town/villiage/country needs you, and to a lawful being that community comes above individual wants and desires.
The mechanism of enforcement matters here too. As far as i know erastil just shakes his finger at you, or at worst, doesn't help you, if you're not going along with the rest of the community.
*Statement not valid at the church of lamasthu. If swelling persists more than 8 months, please contact your midwife
Right, because that thrush that really doesn't like me near their nest has to rely on their strength score to hit
Magically make it so that their precision matters as much as his strength and I'd be trepanated before I could say "sorry ma'm"
The problem often seems to be PFS
No. People blame pfs for "Well this is the rule" , as if their dm were the perfect ontological manifestation of Dming rather than a real human being who is going to rule differently than themselves, who are of course the perfect balance of rules, fairness, power, and sense.
Every time an unclear rule sends pfs into *headscratch, well how does this work* territory you can bet that same rule is being argued and debated in home games too: I can remember vehemently disagreeing with my DM on how interupting spells worked in initiative when initiative was rolled with a d10 and the difference got my Owl Killed.
PFS has the "it's not evil" rule explicitly because of the nomadic nature of the players. Unlike some things like the campaign clarifications documents, it's explicitly a house rule made to deal with how much of a PITA it would be to track darkside points. (and PFS's house rule is still better than the train wreck of horror adventuer's three casts rule) It's not responsible if people don't understand why that rule exists.
A more generous ruling would be that the example is halfling pipe weed , which explicitly says non halflings can't use it, as oppposed to a more passive assumption that a ratfolk would be using ratfolk equipment.
But the ARG requires permission, not is legal unless denied.
When do we want it?
"After a reasonable amount of time to do the double blind experiment, collect the data, review the results, and do it again for repeatability !"
... this is why scientists have such bad handwriting. Trying to fit all that on a protest sign.
A tailblade is a small, sharp knife designed to be strapped to the tip of a wielder's tail.
Benefit: A ratfolk wielding a tailblade can make a tail attack, adding its Strength modifier to the tailblade's damage.
It takes a full-round action to strap on or remove a tailblade. The wearer can loosely attach the tailblade (without strapping it securely in place) as a move action, but using a loosely attached tailblade gives the wielder a –4 penalty on all attack rolls made with the weapon, and other creatures get a +4 bonus on disarm combat maneuver checks to disarm the tailblade.
Ratfolk are considered proficient with such attacks and can apply feats or effects appropriate to natural attacks to tail attacks made with a tailblade. If used as part of a full attack action, attacks with a tailblade are considered secondary attacks.
Bold seems to indicate that you cannot, as much as the thought of a nine tailed scion kitsune with one of these for every occasion amuses me
A throwing shield can be thrown as a free action.
I make a character "Flare" who carries 2,000 tiny shields (each one is painted with a pithy saying) and has the throw anything feat and a high strength bonus.
He also has shield mastery , which says that he takes no penalties to attack with a shield, ever, for any reason.
I throw all 2000 shields for 1d2+str damage each, and then make my full attack action.
I think the argument that "Monk Unarmed Strike" isn't a class ability of the Monk in the same way that any class ability listed for a class is a class ability of that class is a bit strange, to say the least.
I am not making that argument.Re read what was written. Its been said every way it can be said.
And I don't see anything ambiguous about "apply any class ability"; it's no different from Slashing Grace saying you can apply any class ability that usually works with one type of weapon to another.
If you cut out the relevant part like that, yes. You're going to not see it.
While using this style and wielding the chosen weapon, you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite, as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike, as if attacks with the weapon were unarmed attacks.
The two problems there is that monk unarmed strike IS unarmed strike, it can't work with itself
Something that effects the way something that effects the way something worse worse may not apply to something that affects the way something works: you may have to allow the entire chain, not just be able to hotwire one connection directly: ie, it might require parallell circuitry and you only have it in series.
Oh well, agree to disagree I guess; it's not like either of us has a dog in this fight. I was just genuinely surprised people took some kind of exception to using Ascetic Form in that way.
Its not an exception to it, it's half confused dog headtilt and half headdesk with "here we go again"
Kitty Catoblepas wrote:
Given how cheap they are and the sizes of the dragons required to make them my head cannon is that they can be harvested when they shed (sustainably, as druids local 704 would want)
rknop:L baring that, the ability to retrain the skillpoints out permanently is just as much an ability to use power attack permanantly depends on a 13 strength. If you loose one, you loose another.
So if its treated as permanent, rather than instantaneous, it works fine. Your skill points swap out and then go back at the end.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Nah, just poke them on the forehead with the bloody tip of the wand, bonus points if the end of the wand stamps them propery of asmodeuous while you're at it.
"Why's this glowing under detect evil?
"Its.. ahm.. to let you back in the club?
...doing headbutts wrong. Try the top of the head. Not the nose. headbutting someone with your nose sounds pretty ineffective (as a few drunks i've met could tell you...)
Brigid Half-Human wrote:
Half orc is a vastly different story.
I have already listed two of them.
Monk unarmed strike is not something that works with monk unarmed strike, it IS monk unarmed strike.
Its not clear if the feat goes beyond direct application and to indirect application. If you're getting something on there indirectly the feat may not cover it.
They really should know this. They used this language in the past and it caused the same kerfuffle.
No. You are perfectly capable of casting spells in any form: not all spells have verbal components, and psychic spells make it even easier. It isn't directly form dependant: much like bastard sword proficiency an opposable thumb might be handy but it's not form dependent. A dragon disciples scales on the other hand..
, even if it's the fact that they don't like the concept
Its not a matter of like. this is not a matter of not liking the rules, this is a matter of the rules being incredibly unclear, vague, and the logic behind them running over with multiple suppositions at every part of the chain.
ascetic style lets the monk unarmed strike in. That is different than letting in everything that monk unarmed strike lets in.